Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

A politician who prominently and firmly claims to believe leaving the EU is a good thing makes an investment in something to offset the potential impact of leaving the EU turning out not to be a good thing.

It’s not exactly hypocrisy then? It’s just being safe. He isn’t in total control of negotiations so having a safety net investment is just wise. 

[SMX11]

I am pretty sure Steve Baker's opinion is based on the current monetary policy of the central banks not to do with the perceived damage of Brexit. He has been a long time opponent of QE etc.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

It’s not exactly hypocrisy then? It’s just being safe. He isn’t in total control of negotiations so having a safety net investment is just wise. 

We've had this argument before I know, but it is hypocrisy when millions of people who you've helped to convince that this is a good thing aren't in a position to be able to make such a "safety net investment" if it turns out not to be. If you're that convinced that Brexit is going to work for you and your fellow citizens you shouldn't need to be doing stuff like this. If you think there's a real risk that it's not going to work you should be holding your hands up and saying so, rather than continuing to promote it. To do otherwise is massively irresponsible.

 

It's far from an isolated example either...

 

 

The uncertainty caused by the referendum's outcome nearly left me jobless, so excuse me if I get a bit fvcking riled up by this sort of shite as we look to be approaching another period of uncertainty because I don't have any route out like these guys have should it all go tits up. Their actions don't inspire any confidence at all.

[breadandcheese]

40 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Had the West not 'intervened' in Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation.

I don't agree with that argument. Rising Islamism, the Arab Spring, would all have happened with or without Iraq. It would just have been a different place or time.

[Nick]

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

But that's my point. Questioning the motives of those individuals is fine. But to dismiss the concept of intervention because of individuals is crazy.

 

I don't see it as one way is right when it comes to intervention vs stepping away, as both cause no end of problems.

 

What I do challenge is the somehow absolutism and moral superiority that has seem to have taken hold post Iraq that we should step away from the world and engage in passivism. Since then this passivism has led to chemical weapons use and the world leaving the yazidis to it on Mount Sinjar.  

Didn’t Obama send special forces to help the Yazidis on Sinjar? I’m sure we sent aid too. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

We need to help the Kurds. They are a strong and noble people.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

We've had this argument before I know, but it is hypocrisy when millions of people who you've helped to convince that this is a good thing aren't in a position to be able to make such a "safety net investment" if it turns out not to be. If you're that convinced that Brexit is going to work for you and your fellow citizens you shouldn't need to be doing stuff like this. If you think there's a real risk that it's not going to work you should be holding your hands up and saying so, rather than continuing to promote it. To do otherwise is massively irresponsible.

 

It's far from an isolated example either...

 

 

The uncertainty caused by the referendum's outcome nearly left me jobless, so excuse me if I get a bit fvcking riled up by this sort of shite as we look to be approaching another period of uncertainty because I don't have any route out like these guys have should it all go tits up. Their actions don't inspire any confidence at all.

You’re right we have had this discussion before, I’ll leave it as my opinion hasn’t changed unsurprisingly.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

Had the West not 'intervened' in Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation.

We would, most Islamist activity now stemmed from the Arab spring, not the Iraq war. That's a myth that is used by the usual anti-Western politicians to try and make a point.

[leicsmac]

Also, a further point about interventionism: how do we decide which types of intervention are right and which are wrong?

 

There's a whole bunch of despotic regimes out there, some that the UK and the rest of the various allied countries keep in place because it suits them. How do you pick and choose and still keep ahead morally?

[Guest MattP]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Also, a further point about interventionism: how do we decide which types of intervention are right and which are wrong?

You make a decision and then act on it. Same as everything else. You might be right or you might be wrong.

 

When it happens though I always urge people to look at it from the time rather than in hindsight. 

 

Iraq was obviously a disaster, but non intervention in Bosnia was also a disaster.

[Guest MattP]

Just look at these  They are more brainwashed than Trump mob.

 

 

Edited 16 August 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

You make a decision and then act on it. Same as everything else. You might be right or you might be wrong.

 

When it happens though I always urge people to look at it from the time rather than in hindsight. 

 

Iraq was obviously a disaster, but non intervention in Bosnia was also a disaster.

Fair enough, though I'd disagree with the hindsight part - when something does go wrong and things aren't good now because of it (you have to show a direct causal link though, of course) there is a burden of responsibility to those who made the decision - rather than just washing hands and saying "well, we went in with the best intentions".

 

It's not like there's much of a difference between destruction and general trouble caused for "good" or "bad" intentions for those affected by it, is there?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, though I'd disagree with the hindsight part - when something does go wrong and things aren't good now because of it (you have to show a direct causal link though, of course) there is a burden of responsibility to those who made the decision - rather than just washing hands and saying "well, we went in with the best intentions".

 

It's not like there's much of a difference between destruction and general trouble caused for "good" or "bad" intentions for those affected by it, is there?

Just to be clear I never suggested that at all. Of course we look back and judge it.
 

What I meant was we look at why the decision was taken at the time, Iraq for example you can do so and still see the flaws, the Robin Cook speech and resignation being a prime example of why it was wrong even at the time.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Just to be clear I never suggested that at all. Of course we look back and judge it.
 

What I meant was we look at why the decision was taken at the time, Iraq for example you can do so and still see the flaws, the Robin Cook speech and resignation being a prime example of why it was wrong even at the time.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Most of the time, I do think that the picking and choosing of matters to intervene in does seem rather arbitrary and for base purposes rather than out of any sense of altruism, though. As I said before, if this was solely looking at altruistically sorting humanitarian crises in the future (as some people tend to paint most such interventions) pretty much every rich nation would be looking to come off oil/gas/coal power sources right now.

Edited 16 August 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

Poor Jeremy, he's the unluckiest anti-racist ever, goes around the World trying to promote peace and just keeps accidently walking into the company of anti-semites, terrorists and holocaust deniers, now he's somehow managed to again accidently share a platform with an official from a group who murdered a Rabbi.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-pictured-with-pflp-terror-chief-maher-al-taher-at-2014-tunisia-wreath-laying-ceremony-t5rgh0jp5

 

Quote

 

Jeremy Corbyn shared a platform with a senior official from a terrorist group that murdered a British rabbi in a Synagogue attack a month later.

Mr Corbyn stood alongside Maher al-Taher, the leader-in-exile of the proscribed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at the wreath-laying ceremony in Tunisia in 2014. He and Mr Corbyn, who became Labour leader the following year, were invited to attend the event with the official Palestinian Authority delegation.

A month later Mr Taher’s group claimed responsibility for an axe attack at a Jerusalem synagogue in which four rabbis were killed during morning prayers.

 

 

[Countryfox]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

Just look at these  They are more brainwashed than Trump mob.

 

 

 

 

Blimey ...   I didn't realise he won the Nobel peace prize last year ! ...   so, he can't be that bad !!

 

He did win it ? ...   didn't he ???

[Magictv]

Double post

Edited 16 August 2018 by Magictv

[Magictv]

On 14/08/2018 at 14:54, Buce said:

 

This latest analysis is probably more relevant - I can't think why it's not already been posted...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain

 

More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU

Major new analysis shows most constituencies now have majority who want to Remain

 

More than 100 Westminster constituencies that voted to leave the EU have now switched their support to Remain, according to a stark new analysis seen by the Observer.

 

In findings that could have a significant impact on the parliamentary battle of Brexit later this year, the study concludes that most seats in Britain now contain a majority of voters who want to stay in the EU.

The analysis, one of the most comprehensive assessments of Brexit sentiment since the referendum, suggests the shift has been driven by doubts among Labour voters who backed Leave.

As a result, the trend is starkest in the north of England and Wales – Labour heartlands in which Brexit sentiment appears to be changing. The development will heap further pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to soften the party’s opposition to reconsidering Britain’s EU departure.

Researchers at the Focaldata consumer analytics company compiled the breakdown by modelling two YouGov polls of more than 15,000 people in total, conducted before and after Theresa May published her proposed Brexit deal on 6 July.

 

t combined the polling with detailed census information and data from the Office for National Statistics.

 

The 632 seats in England, Scotland and Wales were examined for the study. It found that 112 had switched from Leave to Remain. The new analysis suggests there are now 341 seats with majority Remain support, up from 229 seats at the referendum.

One seat has switched support in Scotland and 97 have switched in England, while 14 of the 40 seats in Wales have changed from Leave to Remain. Overall, the model puts Remain on 53% support, with 47% backing Leave.

It suggests that there is now a majority for Remain in Scotland and Wales – meaning greater pressure on the union following the UK’s departure. Young voters and those from ethnic minorities have also driven the switch to Remain.

It comes with the prime minister still having to negotiate Commons votes over Brexit later this year and also the prospect of a parliamentary vote over the final Brexit deal. Plans are already being drawn up by May’s opponents to try to force a new referendum or election.

On Saturday Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable said those opponents had to work together to bring about a chance for people to have another say. “We have to work across party frontiers,” he said, speaking in Bristol at the first of a series of regional rallies in a planned summer of action by the People’s Vote campaign.

Data scientists compiling the study used a technique known as multi-level regression and post-stratification, similar to that used by YouGov in its pre-election model, which proved far more accurate than conventional opinion polls. However, the polling sample used by YouGov for its election model was much bigger, covering some 50,000 people.

Among the constituencies to switch from Leave to Remain is that of Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary and face of the Leave campaign. Support for Remain in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency has risen from 43.6% to 51.4%, according to the new model.

Surrey Heath, the constituency of the other Leave figurehead, Michael Gove, also emerged as having a pro-Remain majority. Support for Remain increased from 48% in 2016 to 50.2%. There was also a 12.8-point swing to Remain in shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s seat of Hayes and Harlington.

 

The seats of three pro-Leave Labour MPs switched to Remain. Birkenhead, Frank Field’s constituency, now has a 58.4% majority in favour of Remain. Graham Stringer’s Blackley and Broughton constituency now has a 59% in favour of Remain. Kelvin Hopkins’s Luton North seat now has 53.1% backing Remain.

The doubts among Labour Leave voters have been accompanied by a less dramatic hardening of Brexit support among Tory voters. While no constituencies saw a switch from Remain to Leave, support for Brexit went up in some constituencies.

Of the seats that have switched to Remain since the referendum, some of the most dramatic swings have taken place in Liverpool Walton, where support for Remain has risen from 46.2% to 60.5%, Knowsley on Merseyside, where Remain has increased from 47.6% to 61%, and Swansea East, where Remain has risen from 37.9% to 50.7%.

Remain campaigners said that the findings should give more MPs the confidence to back a Brexit rethink. However, some pro-Remain MPs are still doubtful that there has been a significant shift and think a second vote would be a huge risk.

Eloise Todd, the chief executive of Best for Britain, said: “This groundbreaking research shows that Brexit is still not inevitable. People across the UK have witnessed the last two years of uncertainty with dismay and are thinking differently – 112 constituencies have switched to majorities that back staying in our current bespoke deal with the EU.

“The sands of public opinion are shifting and politicians risk falling behind. Our research shows that the deal must be put to the people. Westminster should legislate for a people’s vote on the Brexit terms, giving the public the option to stay and build our future on our current deal with the EU.”

Nick Lowles, head of Hope not Hate, said: “Our data shows a clear shift in public opinion against Brexit and people’s growing anxiety over how leaving the EU will affect themselves and their families. This cannot be ignored.

“The rate of change appears to be quickening as the realities of what Brexit would mean become more apparent and the fears of a no-deal Brexit grow, especially for Labour Leave voters who initially believed that leaving the EU would improve their economic prospects. Brexit is failing these voters and the country as a whole. Politicians need to understand that public opinion has changed.”

Interesting, thanks

[Carl the Llama]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Poor Jeremy, he's the unluckiest anti-racist ever, goes around the World trying to promote peace and just keeps accidently walking into the company of anti-semites, terrorists and holocaust deniers, now he's somehow managed to again accidently share a platform with an official from a group who murdered a Rabbi.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-pictured-with-pflp-terror-chief-maher-al-taher-at-2014-tunisia-wreath-laying-ceremony-t5rgh0jp5

 

Jeremy Corbyn shared a platform with a senior official from a terrorist group that murdered a British rabbi in a Synagogue attack a month later.

Mr Corbyn stood alongside Maher al-Taher, the leader-in-exile of the proscribed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at the wreath-laying ceremony in Tunisia in 2014. He and Mr Corbyn, who became Labour leader the following year, were invited to attend the event with the official Palestinian Authority delegation.

A month later Mr Taher’s group claimed responsibility for an axe attack at a Jerusalem synagogue in which four rabbis were killed during morning prayers.

 

 

In his defence he thought he was meeting with the People's Front for Palestinian Liberation.

 

8 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Blimey ...   I didn't realise he won the Nobel peace prize last year ! ...   so, he can't be that bad !!

 

He did win it ? ...   didn't he ???

He did, anyone saying otherwise is a member of Labour's right wing.

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Blimey ...   I didn't realise he won the Nobel peace prize last year ! ...   so, he can't be that bad !!

 

He did win it ? ...   didn't he ???

I think he won it just before he got the Golden Boot in 1998.

[Guest MattP]

Just so there is no ambiguity,  he should be expelled immediately. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/16/conservatives-call-for-lord-sheikh-to-be-expelled-from-party

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Just look at these  They are more brainwashed than Trump mob.

 

 

 

People involved in politics is now a cult. If this a far right rally you'd be telling us how dangerous and serious  it is and how we should sit up and take notice before they start getting into positions of power. Because these people on the left you ignore the incoming change in our politics that is staring you in the face.

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Just so there is no ambiguity,  he should be expelled immediately. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/16/conservatives-call-for-lord-sheikh-to-be-expelled-from-party

"IT'S ALL AN ISLAMOPHOBIC CONSPIRACY"

 

There's that word again; still undefined and overused, being deployed in this case as a shield to protect him from being found out. 

 

I would say I'm surprised but I'm not.